get_live_capital_opportunityResolve one graph record to its current published terms, eligibility language, award data, contact, freshness, and authoritative source URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opportunity_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying freshness and authoritative source URL, which hints at live data behavior beyond static annotations. However, it doesn't detail risk around open-world data or examples of failure cases, so it's adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists the key output aspects in a comma-separated series, which is concise and front-loaded. It is efficient without wasting words, though it might include too many specific output types that could be inferred from the record structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one simple parameter and strong annotations (readOnly, openWorld), the description covers the core purpose and output. However, there is no output schema, so the description must carry the return value explanation; it does list output facets, but it doesn't explain how the result is structured (e.g., a JSON object with those fields). This is a minor gap for an otherwise simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter, 'opportunity_id', and its schema is simple (string, length limits). The description implicitly clarifies that the parameter should identify a graph record but doesn't add examples or format details. Baseline 3 is fair because the parameter is self-explanatory even without description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Resolve' with a specific resource ('one graph record') and details the outputs ('current published terms, eligibility language, award data, contact, freshness, and authoritative source URL'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_open_capital_opportunities' or 'search_live_capital_opportunities' by focusing on a single graph record, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need the latest published details for a specific opportunity, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for searching, use search_live_capital_opportunities). The context is clear enough for a single-record retrieval, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: pitch lifecycle (check, validate, submit, report) vs. capital/resources discovery (get, search, open). Slight overlap between get_live_capital_opportunity, get_open_capital_opportunities, and search_live_capital_opportunities, but descriptions clarify difference between get (specific record) vs search (general) vs open (current grants). Could be clearer with verbs like 'get_opportunity_by_id'.
Follows consistent verb_noun pattern: check_, get_, search_, validate_, submit_, report_ with clear objects (pitch, capital_opportunity, resource, milestone). Minor inconsistency: 'get_open_capital_opportunities' (adjective) vs 'search_live_capital_opportunities' (adjective) but they are distinguishable. Mixed use of 'opportunity' vs 'opportunities' is fine.
9 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool has a distinct role in the two core domains (pitch management and resource discovery). No redundancy or bloat; count is appropriate for the scope.
Covers pitch lifecycle (existence, validation, submission, milestone reporting) and resource discovery (search, get, live opportunities). Missing obvious update/delete operations for pitches or milestones; no 'delete_pitch' or 'update_pitch'. Also lacks a tool to list all venture resources without search (but search likely covers). Minor gaps but core workflows are covered.